## Facts

- Wayne E. Sole and Cynthia L. Sole filed a first Chapter 13 case on February 28, 1995.
- A secured creditor filed a motion for relief from the automatic stay in October 1995.
- The stay-relief dispute was resolved by consent, and an amended order modifying the stay entered on March 21, 1996.
- On November 17, 1997, the debtors voluntarily dismissed the first Chapter 13 case.
- Three days later, on November 20, 1997, the debtors filed a second Chapter 13 case.
- The standing Chapter 13 trustee moved to dismiss the second case, asserting the debtors were ineligible under 11 U.S.C. § 109(g)(2) because they had voluntarily dismissed a prior case within 180 days after a stay-relief motion had been filed in that prior case.

## Issues

1. Whether 11 U.S.C. § 109(g)(2) bars a debtor from filing a new Chapter 13 case within 180 days of a voluntary dismissal whenever a stay-relief motion was filed at any time in the prior case.
2. Whether § 109(g)(2) applies only when the debtor’s voluntary dismissal is causally connected to, or prompted by, the filing of the stay-relief motion.

## Decision

- The court denied the trustee’s motion to dismiss.
- The court held § 109(g)(2) did not render the debtors ineligible because the prior stay-relief motion had been resolved long before dismissal and there was no indication the dismissal was in response to that motion.

## Legal Principles

- Section 109(g)(2) is aimed at preventing abusive serial filings in which a debtor dismisses and refiles to reimpose the automatic stay and obstruct creditor remedies.
- The term “following” in § 109(g)(2) is not applied as a purely chronological trigger in all circumstances; application requires a causal relationship between the stay-relief request and the debtor’s voluntary dismissal.
- Absent evidence that the debtor dismissed the case to frustrate creditor action tied to the stay-relief motion, § 109(g)(2)’s 180-day bar does not apply.

## Conclusion

The court permitted the second Chapter 13 filing because § 109(g)(2) requires a causal link between a stay-relief motion and the debtor’s voluntary dismissal, and the record showed the earlier stay-relief motion was resolved well before dismissal and did not prompt it.


In re Sole, 233 B.R. 347 (Bankr. E.D. Va. 1998)